Security systems are described in numerous patents, and have been in prevalent use for over 40 years. In the United States, there are over 14 million security systems in residential homes alone. The vast majority of these systems are hardwired systems, meaning the keypad, system controller, and various intrusion sensors are wired to each other. These systems are easy to install when a home is first being constructed and access to the interiors of walls is easy; however the cost increases substantially when wires must be added to an existing home. On average, the security industry charges approximately $75 per opening (i.e. window or door) to install a wired intrusion sensor (such as a magnet and reed switch). For this reason, most homeowners only monitor a small portion of their openings. In order to induce a homeowner to install a substantial system, many security companies will underwrite a portion of the costs of installing a security system. Therefore, if the cost of installation were $1,500 (i.e. approximately 20 windows and doors), the security company may only charge $500 and then require the homeowner to sign a multi-year contract with monthly fees. The security company then recovers its investment over time.
In order to reduce the labor costs of installing wired systems into existing homes, wireless security systems have been developed in the last 10 to 20 years. These systems use RF communications for at least a portion of the keypads and intrusion sensors. Typically, a transceiver is installed in a central location in the home. Then, each opening is outfitted with an intrusion sensor connected to a small battery powered transmitter. The initial cost of the wireless system averages $40 for each transmitter, plus the cost of the centrally located transceiver. This may seem less that the cost of a wired system, but in fact the opposite is true over a longer time horizon. Wireless security systems have demonstrated lower reliability than wired systems, leading to higher service and maintenance costs. For example, each transmitter contains a battery that drains over time (perhaps only a year or two), requiring a service call to replace the battery.
Many of these transmitters lose their programming when the battery dies, requiring reprogramming along with the change of battery. Further, in larger houses, some of the windows and doors may be an extended distance from the centrally located transceiver, causing the wireless communications to intermittently fade out.
These types of wireless security systems operate under 47 CFR 15.231(a), which places severe limits on the amount of power that can be transmitted. For example, at 433 MHz, used by the wireless transmitters of one manufacturer, a field strength of 11 mV/m is permitted at 3 meters. At 345 MHz, used by the wireless transmitters of another manufacturer, a field strength of 7.3 mV/m is permitted at 3 meters. Furthermore, control transmissions are only permitted once per hour, with a duration not to exceed one second. If these same transmitters wish to transmit data under 47 CFR 15.231(e), the field strengths at 345 and 433 MHz are reduced to 2.9 and 4.4 mV/m, respectively. (In a proceeding opened in October, 2001, the FCC is soliciting comments from the industry under which some of the rules of this section may change.) The problems of using these methods of transmission are discussed in various patents, including U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,087,933, 6,137,402, 6,229,997, 6,288,639, and 6,294,992. In addition, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,165 since centrally located transceivers must have a long range (i.e. so as to attempt to reach throughout the house) this transceivers can also transmit and receive signals to/from outside the house and are therefore vulnerable to hacking by sophisticated intruders. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and others, a number of larger security monitoring companies strongly discourage the use of wireless security systems.
In either wired or wireless prior art security systems, additional sensors such as glass breakage sensors or motion sensors are an additional cost beyond a system with only intrusion sensors. Each glass breakage or motion sensor can cost $50 or more, not counting the labor cost of running wires from the alarm panel to these sensors. In the case of wireless security systems, the glass breakage or motion sensor can also be wireless, but then these sensors suffer from the same drawbacks as the transmitters used for intrusion sensing—they are battery powered and therefore require periodic servicing to replace the batteries and reprogram in the event of memory loss.
Because existing wireless security systems are not reliable and wired security systems are difficult to install, many homeowners forego self-installation of security systems and either call professionals or do without. It is interesting to note that, based upon the rapid growth of home improvement chains such as Home Depot and Lowe's, there is a large market of do-it-yourself homeowners that will attempt carpentry, plumbing, and tile—but not security. There is, therefore, an established need for a security system that is both reliable and capable of being installed by the average homeowner.
RFID technology has been in existence for over 40 years, with substantial development by a number of large companies. A search of the USPTO database will reveal several hundred RFID-related patents. Surprisingly, a number large companies such as Micron and Motorola have exited the RFID business as the existing applications for RFID have not proved lucrative enough. Most development and applications for RFID technology have been targeted at moveable items—things, people, animals, vehicles, merchandise, etc.—that must be tracked or counted. Therefore, RFID has been applied to animal tracking, access control into buildings, inventory management, theft detection, toll collections (i.e. EZPass), and library and supermarket checkout. In each of the applications, the low-cost RFID transponder or “tag” is affixed to the moveable object, and the RFID reader is generally a much higher cost transceiver. The relative high cost (hundreds to thousands of dollars) of RFID readers is due to the requirement that it perform reliably in each mobile application. For example, the RFID reader for a toll collection application must “read” all of the tags on cars traveling 40 MPH. Similarly, access control must read a large number of tags in a brief period of time (perhaps only hundreds of milliseconds) while people are entering a building. Or a portable RFID reader must read hundreds or thousands of inventory tags simultaneously while the operator is walking around a warehouse. Each of these applications can be fairly demanding from a technical standpoint, hence the need for sophisticated and higher cost readers. To date, RFID technology has not been applied to the market for security systems in homes or businesses.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide security systems for use in residential and commercial buildings that can be self-installed or installed by professionals at much lower cost than present systems. It is a further object of the present invention to provide a combination of RFID transponders and RFID readers that can be used in a security system for buildings.